Unit: Law
Program: Law (JD)
Degree: Doctor, Juris
Date: Sat Oct 10, 2015 - 10:29:59 pm

1) Below are your program's student learning outcomes (SLOs). Please update as needed.

JD Program Student Learning Outcomes

 

The Law School’s J.D. program is accredited by the American Bar Association and accepted for membership in the Association of American Law Schools. Students admitted to the J.D. program must have an undergraduate degree, among other requirements. In Hawaiʻi, and nearly every other state, a J.D. degree from an accredited school is essential to become a licensed attorney. The Law School necessarily focuses substantial attention on those learning objectives aimed at preparation to pass the bar exam and to practice law ethically and effectively. The school also emphasizes areas of law of importance to Hawaiʻi and to the school’s mission. The J.D. Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) are:

  1. Understand ethical responsibilities as representatives of clients, officers of the court, and public citizens responsible for the quality and availability of justice;

  2. Obtain basic education through a curriculum that develops:

    • understanding of the theory, philosophy, role, and ramifications of the law and its institutions;

    • proficiency in legal analysis, reasoning, problem solving; oral and written communication; legal research;

    • fundamental professional practices necessary to participate effectively in the legal profession;

    • mastery of substantive law regarded as necessary to effective and responsible participation in the legal profession through a completion of a curriculum of required and elective study;

  3. Understand the law as a public profession calling for performance of Pro Bono legal services;

  4. Promote the development of students' critical thinking skills and other intellectual tools that will serve their life-long learning needs, and enable them to provide leadership in law through contributions in research and practice;

  5. Understand and respect law as a social institution in the context of a diverse state with a unique and important history; and

  6. Recognize our global connectedness, especially to the Asia and Pacific regions.

 

1) Institutional Learning Objectives (ILOs) and Program Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs)

2) Your program's SLOs are published as follows. Please update as needed.

Department Website URL: https://www.law.hawaii.edu/content/jd-program-student-learning-outcomes
Student Handbook. URL, if available online: https://www.law.hawaii.edu/student-handbook
Information Sheet, Flyer, or Brochure URL, if available online:
UHM Catalog. Page Number:
Course Syllabi. URL, if available online:
Other:
Other:

3) Please review, add, replace, or delete the existing curriculum map.

Curriculum Map File(s) from 2015:

4) For your program, the percentage of courses that have course SLOs explicitly stated on the syllabus, a website, or other publicly available document is as follows. Please update as needed.

0%
1-50%
51-80%
81-99%
100%

5) Did your program engage in any program learning assessment activities between June 1, 2014 and September 30, 2015?

SKIP

6) What best describes the program-level learning assessment activities that took place for the period June 1, 2014 to September 30, 2015? (Check all that apply.)

Create/modify/discuss program learning assessment procedures (e.g., SLOs, curriculum map, mechanism to collect student work, rubric, survey)
Collect/evaluate student work/performance to determine SLO achievement
Collect/analyze student self-reports of SLO achievement via surveys, interviews, or focus groups
Use assessment results to make programmatic decisions (e.g., change course content or pedagogy, design new course, hiring)
Investigate curriculum coherence. This includes investigating how well courses address the SLOs, course sequencing and adequacy, the effect of pre-requisites on learning achievement.
Investigate other pressing issue related to student learning achievement for the program (explain in question 7)
Other:

7) Briefly explain the assessment activities that took place in the last 18 months.

8) What types of evidence did the program use as part of the assessment activities checked in question 6? (Check all that apply.)

Direct evidence of student learning (student work products)


Artistic exhibition/performance
Assignment/exam/paper completed as part of regular coursework and used for program-level assessment
Capstone work product (e.g., written project or non-thesis paper)
Exam created by an external organization (e.g., professional association for licensure)
Exit exam created by the program
IRB approval of research
Oral performance (oral defense, oral presentation, conference presentation)
Portfolio of student work
Publication or grant proposal
Qualifying exam or comprehensive exam for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation (graduate level only)
Supervisor or employer evaluation of student performance outside the classroom (internship, clinical, practicum)
Thesis or dissertation used for program-level assessment in addition to individual student evaluation
Other 1:
Other 2:

Indirect evidence of student learning


Alumni survey that contains self-reports of SLO achievement
Employer meetings/discussions/survey/interview of student SLO achievement
Interviews or focus groups that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Student reflective writing assignment (essay, journal entry, self-assessment) on their SLO achievement.
Student surveys that contain self-reports of SLO achievement
Other 1:
Other 2:

Program evidence related to learning and assessment
(more applicable when the program focused on the use of results or assessment procedure/tools in this reporting period instead of data collection)


Assessment-related such as assessment plan, SLOs, curriculum map, etc.
Program or course materials (syllabi, assignments, requirements, etc.)
Other 1:
Other 2:

9) State the number of students (or persons) who submitted evidence that was evaluated. If applicable, please include the sampling technique used.

10) Who interpreted or analyzed the evidence that was collected? (Check all that apply.)

Course instructor(s)
Faculty committee
Ad hoc faculty group
Department chairperson
Persons or organization outside the university
Faculty advisor
Advisors (in student support services)
Students (graduate or undergraduate)
Dean/Director
Other:

11) How did they evaluate, analyze, or interpret the evidence? (Check all that apply.)

Used a rubric or scoring guide
Scored exams/tests/quizzes
Used professional judgment (no rubric or scoring guide used)
Compiled survey results
Used qualitative methods on interview, focus group, open-ended response data
External organization/person analyzed data (e.g., external organization administered and scored the nursing licensing exam)
Other:

12) Summarize the results of the assessment activities checked in question 6. For example, report the percent of students who achieved each SLO.

13) What best describes how the program used the results? (Check all that apply.)

Assessment procedure changes (SLOs, curriculum map, rubrics, evidence collected, sampling, communications with faculty, etc.)
Course changes (course content, pedagogy, courses offered, new course, pre-requisites, requirements)
Personnel or resource allocation changes
Program policy changes (e.g., admissions requirements, student probation policies, common course evaluation form)
Students' out-of-course experience changes (advising, co-curricular experiences, program website, program handbook, brown-bag lunches, workshops)
Celebration of student success!
Results indicated no action needed because students met expectations
Use is pending (typical reasons: insufficient number of students in population, evidence not evaluated or interpreted yet, faculty discussions continue)
Other:

14) Please briefly describe how the program used the results.

15) Beyond the results, were there additional conclusions or discoveries? This can include insights about assessment procedures, teaching and learning, and great achievements regarding program assessment in this reporting period.

16) If the program did not engage in assessment activities, please explain.

The Law School worked with the Assessment Office in Spring 2012 as part of the implementation of the Law School Strategic Plan.  Momentum did not continue through AY13-14 due to other priorities and changes in the focus of the Curriculum Committee. Assessment has been undertaken AY14-15 and additional assessment will be undertaken AY15-16 in preparation for reaccreditation of the Law School (AY16-17).